WEST JACKSON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's judgment due to a divided court, where half the justices favored reversal and the other half favored affirmance. The court cited prior case law to support its decision to affirm.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed because the Florida Supreme Court is equally divided on the issue, with three justices voting to reverse and three justices voting to affirm.
“In this case Mr. Justice Strum, Mr. Justice Brown and Mr. Justice Whitfield are of the opinion that the judgment rendered by the trial court, to which the writ of error is addressed, should be reversed, while the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Terrell and Mr. Justice Buford are of the opinion that said judgment should be affirmed; and there being no prospect of a change of judicial opinion the judgment will be affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South. Rep. 51; Pensacola Electric Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389, 54 South. Rep. 452; Quigg, Chief of Police, v. Radel, 86 Fla. 197, 97 South. Rep. 380; and State ex rel. Amos v. Hamwey, 87 Fla. 55, 100 South. Rep. 796; Yarness v. Gregory, 88 Fla. 91, — S. R. —; Broaddus v. Theurer, 92 Fla. —, — S. R. - — ; Cravatt v. Pierson, —Fla. —, — S. R. —.”
This quote illustrates the divided nature of the court and the basis for the affirmance.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a writ of error addressed to a judgment rendered by the trial court. The specific facts leading to the judgment are not detailed in …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Precedent cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In this case Mr. Justice Strum, Mr. Justice Brown and Mr. Justice Whitfield are of the opinion that the judgment rendered by the trial court, to which the writ of error is addressed, should be reversed, while the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Terrell and Mr. Justice Buford are of the opinion that said judgment should be affirmed; and there being no prospect of a change of judicial opinion the judgment will be affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South. Rep. 51; Pensacola Electric Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389, 54 South. Rep. 452; Quigg, Chief of Police, v. Radel, 86 Fla. 197, 97 South. Rep. 380; and State ex rel. Amos v. Hamwey, 87 Fla. 55, 100 South. Rep. 796; Yarness v. Gregory, 88 Fla. 91, — S. R. —; Broaddus v. Theurer, 92 Fla. —, — S. R. - — ; Cravatt v. Pierson, —Fla. —, —S. R. —.
An order will be entered affirming the judgment herein.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Hiram J. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1904)
- Quigg v. Radel, 86 Fla. 197 (Fla. 1923)
- Irwin A. Yarnell v. Gregory, 88 Fla. 91 (Fla. 1924)
- Pensacola Elec. Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1911)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Ernest Amos v. Hamwey, 87 Fla. 55 (Fla. 1924)